EARTH NEGOTIATIONS BULLETIN
PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (IISD)
WRITTEN AND EDITED BY:
Chad Carpenter, LL.M.
Anja Janz
Marybeth Long
Silke Speier
Editor
Pamela Chasek, Ph.D.
Managing Editor
Langston James Goree VI "Kimo"
Vol. 12 No. 40
Monday, 3 March 1997
REPORT OF THE SUBSIDIARY BODIES OF THE UN FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON
CLIMATE CHANGE:
25-28 FEBRUARY 1997
Three of the subsidiary bodies to the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change (FCCC) met in Bonn, Germany, from 25-28 February
1997: the fifth session of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and
Technological Advice (SBSTA-5), the fourth session of the Ad Hoc
Group on Article 13 (AG13-4); and the fifth session of the
Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI-5). The subsidiary bodies
held two concurrent sessions, with the SBI holding six meetings,
the AG13 holding five meetings and the SBSTA holding four
meetings.
SBSTA-5 considered a number of issues, including cooperation with
relevant international organizations, activities implemented
jointly under the pilot phase, methodological issues and national
communications. Delegates reached agreement on the Uniform
Reporting Format, requested a work plan for an in-depth review of
second national communications and requested a number of reports
on technology transfer. Delegates also agreed to expand the
technology needs survey instrument. They also noted the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) second and
third technical papers.
AG13-4 made notable progress in further refining the function and
scope of a multilateral consultative process (MCP). Delegates
discussed several iterations of proposals and agreed to a
“framework compilation,” which reflects areas of convergence and
divergence.
SBI-5 considered a number of difficult issues, such as the
programme budget, the review of the financial mechanism and
actions by the Council of the Global Environment Facility (GEF).
Discussions were complex and often lengthy, but delegates agreed
on the timetable and process for review of the programme budget,
which will be discussed in further detail at SBI-6. They also
agreed on the FCCC input to the UN General Assembly Special
Session to review the implementation of Agenda 21 and the
arrangements for the third meeting of the Conference of the
Parties (COP-3). SBI-5 could not agree on the review of the
financial mechanism or the activities of the GEF and will
continue its discussions during the meeting of the Ad Hoc Group
on the Berlin Mandate from 3-7 March 1997.
OPENING CEREMONY
On Tuesday, 25 February, Executive Secretary Michael Zammit-
Cutajar opened the meetings of the FCCC subsidiary bodies at
10:00 am in the Stadthalle Bad Godesberg in Bonn, Germany. He
noted that this meeting marks a new phase in the history of the
FCCC. For the first time delegates have assembled at the new seat
of the secretariat, which will become the base for one of the
most important international negotiating processes. Bonn Mayor
Bärbel Dieckmann welcomed participants to Bonn and said the city
intends to become a center for addressing international
environment and development issues. Parliamentary Secretary
Walter Hirche, on behalf of German Environment Minister Angela
Merkel, stated that Germany’s willingness to host the secretariat
demonstrates the high priority it places on the issue of climate
change. He called for accelerated negotiations towards an
ambitious protocol with strong reduction targets.
SUBSIDIARY BODY FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVICE
Chair Tibor Farago (Hungary) opened the fifth session of the
Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA-5)
on 25 February 1997. He stressed the need for work on
methodological issues, technology transfer and activities
implemented jointly (AIJ). The Executive Secretary called for a
firm calendar for future meetings to facilitate preparations. He
also pointed to linkages between the SBSTA, AGBM and SBI.
TANZANIA, on behalf of the G-77/CHINA, recalled that negotiations
should not diverge from the COP mandate. BAHRAIN inquired about
embassy access to negotiation information. Following a request
from SBSTA-4, the Chair established contact groups on AIJ and
methodological issues. The SBSTA deferred the election of
officers because consultations with the Chair were still
underway. On 28 February, the Chair noted progress on the
election of officers and said an agreement should be concluded
the following week.
COOPERATION WITH RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
On 25 February, the secretariat introduced the document on
cooperation with relevant international organizations
(FCCC/SBSTA/1997/2). The report addresses coordination between
the SBSTA and international organizations, such as the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the International
Oceanographic Commission (IOC). The report also highlights the
Climate Agenda, a framework to coordinate international climate
research programmes and activities. The Agenda’s major partners
include WMO, UNEP, UNESCO, IOC, WHO and FAO. The WMO introduced
the Annex to FCCC/SBSTA/1997/2 on international coordinated
research and systematic observations programmes, which provides a
summary report of activities supporting Article 5 (Research and
Systematic Observation). The WMO also noted the WHO/WMO/UNEP
report entitled “Climate Change and Human Health” and introduced
the Interagency Network on Climate and Human Health.
A number of delegations, including TRINIDAD and TOBAGO, on behalf
of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), and ZIMBABWE,
stressed the importance of Article 5 to developing countries.
MALAYSIA recognized Article 5 as a basic building block for the
Convention and urged the SBSTA to take the lead in
implementation. The US stressed the need for greater clarity on
the intended role of the GEF regarding Article 5. A number of
countries, including the PHILIPPINES, KUWAIT and CANADA, said
that the SBSTA should not invite the GEF to support Parties’
efforts on improving systematic observations. The PHILIPPINES
said that international organizations are not responsible for
capacity building. The US noted confusion about whether the SBSTA
should function as clearinghouse, implementation agency or
funding source. CHINA urged that cooperation between
international organizations should take place under the COP
assisted by the SBSTA.
ARGENTINA, the US and IRAN expressed concerns regarding
participation of developing countries in scientific programmes.
ARGENTINA noted insufficient information on the effects of
climate change in the Southern Hemisphere. MALAYSIA called for
the establishment of long-term climate monitoring stations in
developing countries. The EU suggested that research and
systematic observations be combined with capacity building and
training. SWITZERLAND expressed concern that the WMO’s summary
report does not adequately address economic and human aspects of
climate change. CANADA and AUSTRALIA urged continued development
of national programmes.
IPCC Chair Bert Bolin reported on the status of forthcoming IPCC
reports and introduced two technical papers on climate models and
stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gases. An additional
technical paper on implications of emissions limitations and
reduction proposals, to be completed by September 1997, would
synthesize existing data and not require new research. KUWAIT,
supported by NIGERIA and VENEZUELA, said Parties, rather than the
IPCC, should determine the nature of this paper. VENEZUELA called
for a special report rather than a technical paper. The US,
supported by AOSIS, responded that the SBSTA had instructed the
IPCC to provide a technical paper. The IPCC Chair said that the
IPCC made the decision to prepare this paper in consultation with
the SBSTA.
AOSIS, the MARSHALL ISLANDS, the US and AUSTRALIA also called for
speedy completion of the technical papers. Several delegations,
including the EU and VENEZUELA, called for analysis of socio-
economic impacts of different limitation proposals. AUSTRALIA
urged that such analysis not delay research on temperature and
sea level rise. With regard to the IPCC’s long-term work
programme, the US suggested giving priority to regional and local
impacts, and urged securing funds and resources for timely
translation and distribution of documents. KUWAIT proposed
requesting the IPCC to take note of country submissions,
contained in FCCC/SBSTA/1997/Misc.2.
In its draft recommendations, the SBSTA recognized the importance
of national activities and coordination of international
organizations for the Climate Agenda. It also noted the need for
adequate resources to improve systematic observation and
research, especially in developing countries. The SBSTA requested
Climate Agenda participants to provide periodic work reports to
SBSTA and requests the secretariat, the WMO and other
organizations to report on observation, research and capacity-
building needs.
Several of SBSTA’s conclusions concern the IPCC’s technical
papers. The SBSTA noted completion of technical papers on simple
climate models (TP2) and global stabilization of atmospheric
greenhouse gas concentrations (TP3). The conclusions also note
that the IPCC Chair’s report on the Technical Paper on
Implications of Emissions Limitations and Reduction Proposals
(TP4) was discussed at length and delegates expressed divergent
views. The Chair emphasized that the Joint Working Group (JWG) is
not a decision-making body and that TP4 discussions concerning
the JWG should be viewed as advisory. The SBSTA requested the
IPCC, in developing TP4, to consider document FCCC/SBSTA/
1997/Misc.2, which contains contributions from seven Parties.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM ANNEX I AND NON-ANNEX I PARTIES
On 25 February, the secretariat made a short report on the
progress achieved in the process of national communications from
Annex I Parties, on the facilitation of assistance to non-Annex I
Parties and the preparation of their national communications, and
on responses from non-Annex I Parties on the expected date for
submission of their communications. The UK noted that its
national communications demonstrate progress toward reducing
emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. JAPAN urged prompt
review of communication results and welcomed the informal
workshop. The EU hoped for upcoming workshops, input from the
secretariat and submissions from Parties addressing technology
transfer issues.
In the draft conclusions on national communications from Annex I
Parties, the SBSTA notes the secretariat’s report regarding
review of first national communications from Annex I Parties. The
SBSTA encourages Annex I Parties to submit their second national
communications and inventory by 15 April 1997 or in accordance
with the COP-2 decision concerning countries with economies in
transition. The SBSTA also requests a work plan from the
secretariat on an in-depth review of these submissions.
In the draft conclusions on national communications from non-
Annex I countries, the SBSTA recalled Articles 12.5 (initial
communications) and Article 4.3 (financial resources for
developing countries) and noted that least-developed countries
may prepare initial communications at their discretion,
developing country Parties have yet to receive funding for
initial national communications and others have yet to request
such funding. SBSTA recalled Decision 10/CP.2, which requests the
Convention secretariat to facilitate assistance to Parties,
especially developing country Parties, via workshops and other
forms of information and to report to the SBSTA at each of its
sessions.
Parties did not reach agreement on funding for voluntary
communications of inventories from non-Annex I Parties. The G-
77/CHINA stated that available, voluntary inventories would be
communicated “should the full costs of inventory preparation be
provided by the operating entity of the financial mechanism.” The
PHILIPPINES supported the G-77/CHINA and called for reference to
Article 11.5 (bilateral, multilateral and regional support). The
US warned that these recommendations would prohibit voluntary
submissions from countries with other funding arrangements. The
EU urged that budgetary matters be addressed by the SBI. Parties
did not reach agreement on the paragraph concerning funding for
communications of inventories. The paragraph was deleted and the
decision was adopted.
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
On 25 February, the Chair noted relationships between cooperation
with international organizations and methodological issues and
established an informal group on this issue. The informal group
produced draft recommendations, which noted a JWG recommendation
that the IPCC, cooperating with other institutions and the FCCC
secretariat, “should take the lead” on methods for GHG
inventories, climate change impacts, and socio-economic cost-
benefit analyses. The secretariat, in consultation with the IPCC
and other relevant organizations, was asked to develop a work
programme based on the methodological tasks in document
FCCC/SBSTA/1996/20.
The issues are: assessing mitigation measures and policies and
adaptation options; projecting emissions; evaluating and
monitoring the effectiveness of specific policies and measures;
assessing mitigation and adaptation technologies; assessing the
impact of climate change; and performing a socio-economic cost
benefit analysis of adaptation and mitigation options. The SBSTA
requested Parties to submit information and proposals on
methodological activities by 15 April 1997. These recommendations
were adopted without further discussion.
MECHANISMS FOR CONSULTATION WITH NGOS
Discussions on mechanisms and procedures for consultation with
NGOs were postponed until the next meeting of the SBSTA, because
the secretariat’s documentation was not complete. The EU
expressed its wish for more NGO involvement and called for prompt
attention to consultation mechanisms. In the draft conclusion,
the SBSTA requested the secretariat to prepare its document on
mechanisms for consultation for the next subsidiary body session
and invited SBI-6 to consider it.
DEVELOPMENT & TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGIES
The secretariat introduced the progress report on technology and
technology transfer (FCCC/SB/1991/1) and FCCC/SBSTA/1997/ Misc.1
and Add.1 containing submissions by non-Annex I countries on
technology needs. The secretariat noted the need to review
activities underway on technology and information centers and
networks, and reported on the survey of technology and
information needs conducted in conjunction with the University of
Amsterdam. Luis Villanueva (Venezuela) reported on the informal
SBI workshop on aspects of implementation of policies and
measures by Annex I Parties. JAPAN then reported on work of the
Climate Technology Initiative (CTI) to strengthen National Action
Plans, increase use of existing climate friendly technology and
improve new technology.
A number of countries welcomed the progress report and requested
that the secretariat conduct further surveys of technology and
technology information needs. A number of countries, including
the EU, the US and CANADA, stressed the importance of the CTI.
The G-77/CHINA urged removal of restrictions on technology
transfer. The US called for a focus on commercial investment in
cleaner technologies in developing countries and on assessments
of needs. MALAYSIA said that many technologies are only available
commercially. The EU, CANADA and THAILAND also stressed the role
of the private sector in technology transfer. MAURITIUS said that
governments must approve transfer of technologies from commercial
firms. The MARSHALL ISLANDS and CHINA said that solutions do not
lie with the private sector.
The G-77/CHINA, supported by KIRIBATI, MALAYSIA, NIGERIA, the
MARSHALL ISLANDS, THAILAND, INDIA and TANZANIA, said fulfillment
of developing countries’ commitments depends on the provision of
resources and technology transfer and is the basis for all
negotiations, including AGBM discussions. They requested the
secretariat to prepare a progress report on technology transfer
by developed countries and expressed concern that little progress
had been made on the promotion and transfer of adaptation
technology. They further proposed that the SBSTA establish an
intergovernmental technical advisory panel (ITAP). The difference
between AIJ and technology transfer was also stressed.
THAILAND and INDIA noted the importance of endogenous capacity
building in developing countries. A number of countries,
including the EU, the G-77/CHINA, MALAYSIA, CANADA, SAUDI ARABIA,
NIGERIA and THAILAND, emphasized the importance of specialized
information centers and networks. The US cautioned that such
centers should not replicate existing capabilities. INDIA also
advocated use of existing technology information centers.
AUSTRALIA said that its technology transfer efforts coincide with
needs outlined by CHINA: environmentally sound, appropriate for
users, driven by recipient countries, and involving hard and soft
technology. The GEF provided an update on its Science and
Technology Advisory Panel (STAP), which is working closely with
the SBSTA to study technology transfer and identify promising
technologies.
Informal consultations resulted in the following draft
conclusions. The SBSTA urged the secretariat to accelerate
preparation of reports on terms of transfer, adaptation
technology and technology information centers, and to complete
the itemized progress report by SBSTA-7 on access to and transfer
of technology based on Annex I communications. SBSTA further
requested the secretariat to expand the technology needs survey
instrument, to prepare a report on existing centers and networks,
to update the technology inventory for SBSTA-7 and to prepare a
scoping paper on the role of the private sector and activities of
governments and international bodies in creating conditions for
commercial investment in cleaner technologies. CHINA and the
PHILIPPINES wanted to add that it is mainly the role of Annex II
Parties to carry out such activities. CANADA and the US did not
agree. The Chair suggested compromise text: “taking into account
the special role of Annex I Parties and the special conditions of
non-Annex I countries.”
SBSTA further requested the secretariat to report on experiences
in using a roster of experts. The G-77/CHINA added that many
Parties urged SBSTA to set up ITAPs without delay. The US,
supported by the EU, stressed institutional problems of ITAPs and
said establishment of an ITAP should await completion of the
evaluation report. MALAYSIA added that the SBSTA shall address
this issue at its next session. Furthermore, the SBSTA requested
Parties to provide information on technology needs and urged non-
Annex I Parties to cooperate in the survey. The draft conclusions
were adopted, as amended.
ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED JOINTLY UNDER THE PILOT PHASE
On 27 February 1997, delegates discussed activities implemented
jointly (AIJ) under the pilot phase and the Uniform Reporting
Format (FCCC/SBSTA/1997/3) and a document containing comments
from Parties on methodological issues pertaining to AIJ
(FCCC/SBSTA/1997/Misc.3). The G-77/CHINA, supported by ZIMBABWE,
recalled that the concept of Joint Implementation (JI) only
applies to Annex I countries, and that AIJ does not provide for
crediting. He said that AIJ worked on a voluntary basis, and that
it cannot be a conditionality for technology transfer. AIJ should
be reviewed in 1999. Annex I countries should not assume that
they would implement the Protocol or other legal instrument
though JI. He suggested requesting the secretariat to prepare a
report on the long-term consequences of AIJ on developing
countries. ZIMBABWE emphasized that AIJ must be nationally
driven. The US urged that the SBSTA take up the issue of
crediting at its next session. The EU said that Parties should
resubmit their reports according to the new uniform reporting
framework. He proposed requesting the secretariat to organize a
workshop on baselines and monitoring procedures. JAPAN also
stressed the importance of institutional arrangements in host
countries.
A contact group was established to consider the Uniform Reporting
Format and the list of methodological issues. The group
considered the annexes to the document on this issue from SBSTA-4
(FCCC/SBSTA/1996/15), which was still open for discussion.
As a result of these informal consultations, the SBSTA adopted
and decided to keep under regular review the Uniform Reporting
Format contained in annexes 1 and 2 to the draft conclusions
(FCCC/SBSTA/1997/L.1). The SBSTA invited Parties to report on AIJ
under the pilot phase using the adopted format. The SBSTA also
recalled that the submission deadline for contributions to the
synthesis report for COP-3 is 30 June 1997. Annex 3 to the draft
conclusions contains a list of methodological issues related to
AIJ. These include determination of benefits, measurement,
reporting and assessment, endogenous capacity-building, transfer
of technologies, costs, incentive structures and institutional
arrangements. SBSTA requested the secretariat to develop
practical options on these issues and to report on the progress
made.
The meeting was adjourned on Friday, 28 February, at 1:00 pm.
SUBSIDIARY BODY FOR IMPLEMENTATION
SBI Chair Mohamed Ould El-Ghaouth (Mauritania) opened the fifth
session of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI-5) on
Tuesday, 25 February. He noted that SBI-5 must take definitive
decisions and, because no SBI meeting is scheduled during COP-3,
the group must discharge all its duties beforehand.
FCCC Executive Secretary Michael Zammit-Cutajar addressed a
number of items on the SBI agenda. On the review of the financial
mechanism, he stated that the GEF needs a predictable demand from
the Convention if it is to conduct a successful replenishment,
and Parties must send a clear and timely signal regarding their
future intentions. On support for initial communications by non-
Annex I Parties, he said there is an urgent need for a support
arrangement consisting of: a concerted “marketing” effort to
ensure that all eligible Parties have access to financial
resources; a central point for collecting information on the
progress of communication projects; and a programme to enable
groups of countries to exchange experiences.
Regarding the election of the SBI’s officers, the Chair noted
that the issue must be postponed until later in the meeting as
consultations were still underway. On 26 February, the Chair
reported that José Romero (Switzerland) was elected Vice-
President of the SBI and Patricia Iturregui Byrne (Peru) as
Rapportuer.
NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS
On 25 February, the secretariat introduced the document on
national communications from Parties included in Annex I to the
Convention (FCCC/SB/1997/INF.1). The report describes the
progress made with regard to in-depth reviews of first national
communications, including two tables listing countries and their
progress. The US expressed concerns about the costs of in-depth
reviews of national communications and noted that reviews may not
be cost-efficient. The FCCC Executive Secretary stated that the
funds for the reviews are received from the core UN budget, and
are not extra-budgetary spending. He offered to provide the
delegates with a programme budget paper in a few days, in
addition to the planned complete budget overview in July. The EU
expressed concern about the progress of the review process itself
and called on all governments to support it. The UK stressed that
existing commitments to prepare national communications are as
important as future commitments resulting from the Berlin
Mandate. The PHILIPPINES requested resuming discussions on the
issue after the informal workshop on national communications.
This workshop was convened on Wednesday, 26 February, and chaired
by Katsunori Suzuki (Japan). In his report on 27 February, Mr.
Suzuki stated that the workshop discussed energy subsidies,
environmental legislation and voluntary agreements. Regarding
energy subsidies, he noted that several countries are undertaking
reforms to introduce competition and market conditions in the
energy sectors, including the removal of subsidies,
privatization, deregulation and decentralization of decisions.
Participants also noted, inter alia, that subsidies for fossil
fuel production, which are often motivated by important social
concerns, can counteract policies and measures taken to mitigate
climate change. The removal of subsidies could be painful in the
short term but can bring significant economic and environmental
benefits. Regarding environmental legislation, participants noted
that countries with economies in transition are presently
undertaking major reforms to facilitate transition to market-
based economies. This involves the removals of subsidies on
energy prices, allocation of property rights, changes in
legislation and decentralization of executive powers. Regarding
voluntary agreements, participants noted that voluntary
agreements between government and industry, as well as other
stakeholders, could be effective for mitigating greenhouse gas
emissions.
On Friday, 28 February, the SBI considered the Chair’s draft
conclusions on communications from Annex I Parties
(FCCC/SBI/1997/L.1). The conclusions state that the SBI
encouraged Annex I Parties to submit their second national
communications and inventory data by 15 April 1997. The SBI
welcomed the informal workshop held at this session and concluded
that the workshop served a useful purpose in allowing Parties and
observers to exchange information and views on the implementation
aspects of specific policies and measures. The SBI also requested
the secretariat to explore the possibility of exchanging
information by convening workshops on specific topics in
conjunction with future SBI sessions. CHINA noted the costs and
the inconsistent quality of workshops. He said the workshops
should be convened “when and where necessary.” The conclusions
were adopted as amended.
Regarding communications from non-Annex I Parties, the Chair’s
draft conclusions state that the SBI took note of the activities
underway by the secretariat to facilitate the provision of
support to non-Annex I Parties for the preparation of their
national communications. SBI requests the secretariat to continue
to report at future SBI sessions on further progress achieved.
CHINA, supported by the CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC, requested that
future progress reports should be prepared, bearing in mind COP-2
Decision 10, which requests the secretariat to report on its
activities. The CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC requested a reference to
Article 12.4 (assistance to developing countries) and Article 4.3
(agreed full costs for developing countries). The US noted that
the GEF received little response from non-Annex I Parties when it
requested information about their needs in preparing their
national communications. BURKINA FASO and ALGERIA stressed that
procedures to deal with the GEF can be very cumbersome and that
efforts made by non-Annex I Parties must be recognized. The
conclusions were adopted as amended.
FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION
REVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL MECHANISM: On Wednesday, 26 February, the
secretariat introduced the document, “Financial mechanism: review
process referred to in decision 9/CP.1” (FCCC/SBI/1997/2), which
contains information prepared by the GEF to assist the SBI in its
review of the financial mechanism. The document recalls decision
9/CP.1, which calls for initiation of a review process for the
financial mechanism and for taking appropriate measures,
including a determination of the definitive status of the GEF.
COP-2 requested SBI-4 to undertake this review process. The
document updates the report presented by the GEF to COP-2 by
providing new information on project financing for the period
May-December 1996. The document also highlights other relevant
information presented in earlier reports.
The G-77/CHINA stressed the importance of the review, but noted
that the document was received rather late and full consideration
could not be completed immediately. He said the review could
begin at this session and delegates could benefit from the
discussions at the upcoming Special Session of the UN General
Assembly. He also emphasized the need to increase the GEF’s
resources. CHINA said the disbursement process should be
streamlined and more flexible. COLOMBIA said a review of the
financial mechanism this year is premature and more time is
needed to examine the results of the GEF’s investment projects.
IRAN stated that one session would not be sufficient for adequate
consideration of the review process. The DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S
REPUBLIC OF KOREA stated that the GEF does not function
efficiently and some projects took three years to get approved.
The EU noted progress on the operational strategy and the
Memorandum of Understanding between the GEF and the FCCC. He
emphasized the importance of a review every four years to ensure
the GEF’s conformity with COP guidance, the effectiveness of its
projects and the provision of adequate resources. He noted that
agreement on details at this session would help establish the
role of the GEF and clarify outstanding issues pertaining to its
forthcoming replenishment. CANADA said that in addition to
discrete projects, the review should also address elements, such
as the GEF’s ability to cooperate with other international
organizations, leverage resources and “mainstream” environmental
concerns. The Chair noted the lack of resources and time during
the intersessional period. Delegates agreed to suspend discussion
of the document to allow more time for review and to revisit the
issue in an informal process. On Friday, 28 February, the Chair
announced that the informal group on this issue would not
complete its work by the end of the week. As a result, the SBI
will reconvene during the AGBM meeting to consider the informal
group’s conclusions.
INFORMATION ON RELEVANT ACTION BY THE GEF COUNCIL: The
secretariat introduced the document on relevant action by the GEF
Council (FCCC/SBI/1997/Misc.1). The document recalls Decision 10
from COP-2, which requested the secretariat to provide
information on the financial support available to non-Annex I
Parties for the preparation of their national communications. The
document contains information on projects proposed by Parties,
funding decisions and date and amount of funds available. The EU
noted that the interim operating entity is functioning
effectively and that the GEF will be a “cross-point” for the flow
of technology. Delegates agreed to suspend discussion of the
document to allow more time for review and to revisit the issue
in an informal process. On Friday, 28 February, the Chair
announced that the informal group on this issue would not
complete its work by the end of the week. The SBI will reconvene
during the AGBM to consider its conclusions.
DEVELOPMENT & TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGIES
On 25 February, the Chair noted the SBI’s intention to discuss
the issue of development and transfer of technology on Thursday,
27 February, and also highlighted the secretariat’s progress
report on the issue (FCCC/SB/1997/1). The Chair proposed that the
SBI defer consideration of the issue to the SBSTA and allow the
SBSTA to refer matters to the SBI when appropriate. On 28
February, the SBI accepted conclusions taking note of the
workshop on technology transfer. The SBI decided to defer the
consideration of this issue and to request the SBSTA to refer
relevant issues as necessary.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL MATTERS
PROGRAMME BUDGET FOR 1998-99 — PERSPECTIVES ON FINANCIAL
REQUIREMENT: On Tuesday, 25 February, the Executive Secretary
introduced the document “Administrative and Financial Matters —
Programme Budget for 1998-1999: Perspectives on financial
requirements” (FCCC/SBI/1997/3). The document outlines the
approach of the Executive Secretary in constructing a new work
programme that aims to deliver the outputs demanded by the
Parties in the next biennium and to support the intergovernmental
structure that they have established. The building blocks are
sub-programmes corresponding to the main tasks that the
secretariat is currently required to perform and are expected to
continue through the next biennium. The document also contains: a
proposed timetable and process for the consideration and adoption
of the programme budget; a section addressing uncertainties and
issues on which the Executive Secretary is seeking guidance; and
preliminary resource estimates for the core budget. The document
envisages that the work of the secretariat for the biennium 1998-
1999 will be organized into six programmes: policy-making organs;
executive direction and management; science and technology;
implementation; conference management and information services;
and resources, planning and coordination.
CHINA, supported by the EU, CANADA, JAPAN and the US, welcomed
the document and requested more time for its consideration.
CANADA and JAPAN also requested more detailed information on
specific sections of the document.
On Thursday, 27 February, the Chair distributed additional
information on items such as: options on the preliminary
estimated costs for conference services; estimates of the costs
related to the in-depth reviews in 1996; and estimated staffing
of the secretariat for 1998-99. The Executive Secretary expressed
the need for guidance on content, the calendar of meetings, the
question of providing for an intergovernmental process after COP-
3, and liaison arrangements in Geneva and New York. He also
requested advice on how to prepare for the possibility that the
UN General Assembly might discontinue financial support for
conference services.
The G-77/CHINA stated that the budget must be prepared with
maximum transparency and simplicity, and active, informed
participation of all Parties. As for the post-Kyoto process, he
stated that references to analytical work on flexibility
provisions, such as emissions trading, are unacceptable. He
reaffirmed the commitment of developing countries to preparing
initial communications, but requested the deletion of a paragraph
on reviews of national communications. He requested the
secretariat to provide to SBI-6: a comparative table of current
and future budgets elaborated sector-by-sector; a table
indicating different secretariat sectors and their current and
1998 activities; tables on estimated staff for the biennium 1998-
1999; and any other information that could facilitate extensive
discussion of the budget by the SBI. CHINA and MALAYSIA expressed
concern regarding a reference to peer review of national
communications and emissions trading. CHINA also said it is
premature to have a budget item for an MCP while consultations
are ongoing. ARGENTINA supported the option for conference
services that allows for contracting translation services from a
UN source and interpretation and other sources from commercial
contractors.
The EU stated that the issue could be advanced by informal
discussions before SBI-6. He requested an explanation for the
preliminary increase in professional staff and said it was
premature to include the IPCC in the science and technology
programme when its relationship to the secretariat is not yet
clear. On non-Annex I Party communications, he said that
activities should be considered in detail at a later stage. He
expressed the hope that 52nd session of General Assembly will
decide that conference services for the FCCC will still be in the
budget.
The US recognized that the secretariat should coordinate work on
developing methodologies but should not undertake the work
itself. On conference services, the US supported contracting all
services from individual or corporate contractors. He said FCCC
contributions to the IPCC budget should stay below 15 percent to
ensure its independence and expressed concern at the magnitude of
post-Kyoto staff and budget increases. JAPAN also expressed
concern regarding the total amount of resources and requested
more information on how increases will be accounted for. He
proposed revisiting the issue of the post-Kyoto budget in July.
Regarding liaison offices, the US, supported by CANADA, proposed
performing periodic visits rather than maintaining liaison
offices in New York and Geneva. JAPAN proposed cooperative
arrangements for liaison arrangements. The DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S
REPUBLIC OF KOREA noted that a liaison office in Geneva was
essential for developing countries that have missions in Geneva
but not in Bonn. COLOMBIA drew the attention of donor countries
to the fund for developing country participation and underscored
its importance in light of the move to Bonn.
Responding to questions, the Executive Secretary said the
document was intended to provoke reactions and, based on
delegates’ comments, had indeed been “provocative.” He said the
full programme budget would contain more information and noted
that requests for direct comparisons between future and current
expenditures present a problem because some current budget items
have been spread among other programmes. He also noted that the
proposed budget attempts to estimate the resources necessary for
the post-Kyoto sessions. An informal group convened during the
evening to further discuss the budget.
On Friday, 28 February, delegates considered the Chair’s draft
conclusions (FCCC/SBI/1997/L.1), which note that the SBI endorses
a timetable and process for review and adoption of the programme
budget for the biennium 1998-1999. The timetable states, inter
alia, that: a comprehensive programme budget will be proposed for
consideration and complete review at SBI-6 in July; the
recommended decision will provide a total budget with allocations
by programme, a secretariat-wide staffing table and a provision
enabling the Executive-Secretary to switch resources among
programmes within limits; some elements of the budget may have to
be recommended as contingencies; and Parties will be notified of
their indicative contributions to the core budget by 1 October
1997.
The draft conclusions also note that the SBI requests the
Executive Secretary to propose a programme budget for the
biennium 1998-1999 for consideration at SBI-6, taking account
views expressed by delegations at SBI-5. The SBI also requests
the Chair to consider convening broadly representative informal
intersessional consultations to facilitate agreement on the
programme budget at SBI-6.
CHINA said that the SBI should consider informal intersessional
consultations to facilitate agreement on the programme budget “if
feasible.” On the request for a programme budget, the EU proposed
stating that “several delegations noted the proposed increase of
the budget and expressed concerns that a full justification
should be made before it is agreed.” In addition, the EU proposed
a “detailed” programme budget and specific outputs from each
programme. CHINA proposed noting that “many delegations stressed
that any budget proposal must be in line with the Convention
provisions and the relevant COP decisions.” The US opposed the
“Christmas tree” additions and suggested retaining the existing
paragraph. The US also noted that he would make additional
proposals if the proposals of the EU and CHINA were accepted.
CHINA suggested, as an alternative, taking “full” account of the
views expressed. The CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC expressed its
preference for including the two additional sentences. Delegates
discussed the issue at length and agreed to postpone further
discussion to allow time for consultations.
In the afternoon, the EU proposed that the budget be submitted
for consideration “and discussion” and that the informal
intersessional consultations will facilitate “possible” agreement
on the budget. Delegates agreed to language calling for a
“detailed” budget that specifies the output of each programme for
full consideration and discussion at SBI-6. Intersessional
consultations will be held, if feasible, to facilitate possible
agreement.
VOLUME OF DOCUMENTATION: Decision 17 from COP-2 called on Parties
to limit requests for additional documentation and the volume of
comments submitted. The Executive Secretary was also requested to
submit further options for reducing the costs of documentation
for meetings under the COP. The annotated agenda notes that the
secretariat will not be able to propose options for reducing
costs until after SBI-5, when necessary information and
statistics will be available.
On Thursday, 27 February, the Executive Secretary distributed
draft conclusions on documentation for discussion in an informal
session that evening. On Friday, 28 February, delegates
considered the draft conclusions in document FCCC/SBI/1997/L.1,
which notes that the secretariat requires more time and will
submit recommendations to SBI-6. The conclusions also request the
Executive Secretary to explore the possibility that, when
justified, each language version of the documentation may be
distributed as it becomes available. CHINA requested an
additional sentence referring to the importance of paper document
distribution to developing countries, as many of them lack
Internet connections. The text was adopted as amended.
LEGAL MATTERS
On Thursday, 27 February, the secretariat informed the SBI about
the implementation of the Headquarters Agreement. COP-2, in
Decision 15 of COP-2, approved the Agreement, which will enter
into force as soon as the German Parliament has adopted the
required legislation. In December 1996, the Government of Germany
issued an ordinance on the provisional application of the
Agreement. The secretariat also informed the SBI on action taken
by the Convention depositary. It was decided that the SBI will
recommend to COP-3 to consider the request from the Czech
Republic and the Slovak Republic to delete the name of
Czechoslovakia from Annex I to the Convention and add the names
of the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic to Annex I (Part
II, Section III of FCCC/CP/1996/15/Add.1, para.1).
On Friday, 28 February, delegates adopted the Chair’s conclusions
on these issues (FCCC/SBI/1997/L.1). The conclusions take note of
the actions of the German government and recommend to the COP to
take up the requests form the Czech and Slovak Republics when it
reviews the lists of Annexes I and II to the Convention.
MATTERS ARISING FROM THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
On Wednesday, 26 February, the Chair noted that the input from
the FCCC to the Special Session of the General Assembly, to be
held in June 1997, must be addressed at this SBI session. He
noted that a draft has been prepared (FCCC/SBI/1997/4) and an
informal group chaired by Takao Shibata (Japan) will address the
issue. KUWAIT noted that COP-2 took note of, “but did not adopt”
the Geneva Ministerial Declaration and that a later reference to
the Geneva Ministerial Declaration should be coupled with a
reference to another statement adopted by those delegations that
did not support the Declaration. The US urged the informal group
to use agreed-upon references. On 27 February, Shibata informed
the SBI that the informal group had been unable to meet because
delegates were attending other meetings. He requested interested
delegations to submit written comments.
On 28 February, Shibata presented the draft conclusions of the
informal group. The conclusions note, inter alia: the linkages of
the FCCC and the framework of Agenda 21; the second compilation
of national communications; the work of the IPCC and its steps
toward a Third Assessment Report; and the first steps to deal
with rising emissions, such as the Geneva Declaration. It also
states that the General Assembly may wish to focus on priority
issues, such as how developing countries can acquire the levels
of energy needed for development while avoiding emissions of
greenhouse gases. CHINA said that the reference to avoiding
greenhouse gas emissions was unacceptable because they occur
naturally. He stated that the conclusions were too heavily
directed at developing countries and depart from the Convention’s
spirit. Delegates agreed to convene another informal group to
reconsider the conclusions.
In the evening, the revised conclusions were introduced, which
state that the FCCC has received 165 instruments of ratification
or accession, assuring almost universal membership of States.
They also state that a second compilation and synthesis of
national communications was submitted to COP-2, demonstrating
that Annex I Parties need to take additional measures to achieve
the aim of lowering emissions. In addition, the conclusions note
the importance of the IPCC, whose Second Assessment Report is
considered to be the most comprehensive and authoritative
assessment available of scientific and technical information
regarding global climate change. The conclusions also note first
steps to address rising emissions, such as COP-1’s agreement on
the Berlin Mandate and COP-2’s call for acceleration of
negotiations of the text of a protocol or other legal instrument.
The General Assembly Special Session may wish to encourage member
States to agree on satisfactory results at COP-3. Also noted are
the GEF’s efforts to support developing country Parties.
The CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC proposed a reference to “human”
capacity building. The text was adopted as amended.
Regarding action by the General Assembly at its 51st Session, the
SBI took note of the action and requested the Executive Secretary
to report on the review of administrative arrangement at its
sixth session.
ARRANGEMENTS FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL MEETINGS
The Executive Secretary introduced the document “Arrangements for
intergovernmental meetings” (FCCC/SBI/ 1997/5). He referred to
arrangements at COP-3 in Kyoto and noted a Bureau recommendation
that, due to the timing of COP-3 in late 1997, COP-4 could be
held early in 1999. COP-4 will be held in Bonn unless a
government offers to host it. Regarding the calendar of meetings
for 1997-1999, he pointed out that meetings in 1998-1999 need to
be scheduled soon to ensure availability of conference facilities
in Bonn.
The G-77/CHINA, supported by CHINA and BOTSWANA, expressed
concern about the late distribution of documents for the current
session. He recalled that the recommendation to hold COP-4 in
early 1999 was made known via document FCCC/1996/INF.4 during the
December 1996 sessions. At the close of SBSTA-5, a statement was
made on behalf of the G-77/CHINA expressing concern about this
recommendation. In addition, according to Article 7.4, a COP
meeting should take place every year unless otherwise decided by
the COP. He requested COP-3 to review this issue. The Chair
decided to leave this issue pending.
On Friday, 28 February, delegates considered the Chair’s draft
conclusions on COP-3, contained in FCCC/SBI/1997/L.1. The
conclusions request the Executive Secretary to provide a note to
SBI-6 containing a list of possible elements for the provisional
agenda for COP-3 focused on the completion of work of the Berlin
Mandate and its adoption. In the draft conclusions, the SBI
decides that: COP-3 will be held from 1-10 December 1997; after
addressing organizational matters, COP-3 will immediately
allocate the completion of decisions on the Berlin Mandate
process to a sessional committee of the whole, open to all
delegations; and in order to finalize the political negotiations
on the outcome of the Berlin Mandate, a ministerial segment will
take place from 8-10 December, when the final text of a protocol
or other legal instrument will be adopted.
CHINA, supported by the CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC, INDIA, BURKINA
FASO, MALAYSIA and the G-77/CHINA, proposed stating that any new
substantive proposals must be communicated in draft form to all
Parties six months before the ministerial segment. He noted that
prior to COP-2 there were rumors that a ministerial declaration
was forthcoming, but it came as a surprise to his delegation. The
US expressed concern on changing the existing language and noted
that the SBI could not “tie the hands” of the COP. He noted that
if a declaration should emerge from Kyoto it will be the decision
of the COP.
The Chair, supported by the US, proposed a reference to keeping
the arrangements for the conference under review by the SBI.
CHINA amended his proposal to request communication from “six
months” to “well in advance” of COP-3. He also stated that the
refusal of some countries to support his proposal “left him
wondering.” MALAYSIA stated that he was caught in surprise at
COP-2 and felt an “air of conspiracy.” ARGENTINA reminded
delegates that the SBI can provide recommendations to the COP but
cannot decide what the COP will do. He also noted that the SBI
could not preclude issues from consideration by the COP. The US,
supported by GERMANY and the UK, proposed that the SBI should
keep the arrangements of the conference under review and
recommends that any new, substantive proposals concerning these
arrangements be communicated well in advance of the start of the
conference. CHINA said this did not solve the problem of
transparency and noted that “arrangements” and “proposals” are
not the same thing. MALAYSIA proposed noting that all action be
“in accordance with normal UN practice.” Delegates debated the
issue at length before agreeing to language noting that any new
substantive proposals, including proposals affecting the purpose
and organization of the ministerial segment, should be
communicated to all Parties well in advance of the conference, in
accordance with UN practice. As proposed by the US, the language
was included as a sub-item under the chapeau on “organization of
work of COP-3,” rather than as a separate paragraph.
The SBI also adopted conclusions on the calendar of meetings for
1997-1998. The SBI decided to recommend the date and venue of
COP-4 at SBI-6, after hearing potential offers to host the
conference. It called on Parties to submit offers to host COP-4
by SBI-6. The SBI also took note of the calendar of meetings for
1997 and requested the secretariat to propose at SBI-6 a calendar
of meetings for 1998-1999 based on holding two blocks of meetings
of the Convention bodies each year, with each block comprising
two weeks of meetings.
The Chair suspended the session in the evening on 28 February
1997. SBI will meet again during AGBM-6.
AD HOC GROUP ON ARTICLE 13
Chair Patrick Széll (UK) opened the fourth session of the Ad Hoc
Group on Article 13 (AG13-4) on Tuesday, 25 February. He recalled
that at its last session, AG13 had agreed that formal conclusions
about a multilateral consultative process (MCP) were premature
but emphasized that it was possible to distinguish several areas
of convergence and divergence. Discussions at AG13-3 were
organized around themes contained in an “elements” paper
(characteristics, functions, institutional arrangements and
procedures). Those elements would also serve as a basis for
discussion at this session (Annex II to FCCC/AG13/1996/4).
IRELAND (on behalf of the EU), UZBEKISTAN and SWITZERLAND also
made submissions (FCCC/AG13/1997/ Misc.1).
The Chair noted that ideas from AG13-3 were constructive and
clear, but said that AG13 cannot continue on a “diet of general
statements.” The listed options need to be reduced and AG13
should move ahead. He noted that there were points of
convergence, such as the agreement that an MCP was a system for
seeking solutions to problems arising in the implementation of
the FCCC and that its characteristics should be facilitative,
cooperative, simple and transparent. The widest divergence
pertained to whether an MCP should be advisory or supervisory.
The answer will trigger several consequences for the
characteristics, institutional arrangements and procedures of an
MCP and would therefore facilitate determination of these issues.
Delegates began with general statements and questions. The Chair
noted that in view of the time remaining before COP-3, AG13 could
likely conclude its work no earlier than at COP-4 or later. The
EU called for creation of a forum for consultations or a “help
desk” rather than a place where governments stand accused of
breaching their commitments.
CHINA warned against duplication of existing mechanisms and said
that the FCCC should not copy the non-compliance procedure under
the Montreal Protocol. UZBEKISTAN envisaged the MCP as a process
that renders consultative services to Parties and called for a
special group with wide geographic representation to address
issues of law, economics, ecology and social issues. The group
would be established by the COP, meet twice a year and make non-
binding recommendations.
Delegates then considered the elements of an MCP and agreed to
first focus on questions of an MCP’s function. The EU, supported
by SWITZERLAND, called for an advisory regime to assist
implementation, which would have a broad competence but not
encroach on other bodies. CHINA noted that an MCP should take
action prior to, rather than following, implementation. It should
enable and support Parties during the course of implementation.
The US, supported by JAPAN, said that including scientific and
technological expertise could lead to duplication of the SBSTA’s
work. JAPAN said that there is broad agreement on an advisory
role. The Chair stated that delegates had expressed a preference
for an advisory role. He noted that no delegation had called for
a more “intrusive” regime.
The EU noted that an MCP will not have the functions of the SBI
and SBSTA, but should not have reduced scope. It should draw on
expertise from the SBSTA and SBI, and ensure that it has access
to information and expertise. CHILE noted that Article 14 calls
for settlement of disputes through negotiations or “any other
peaceful means,” and that an MCP could fill the latter role. The
Chair asked whether this process should be part of the formal
procedure for dispute settlements and recalled a number of
statements that had envisaged an MCP as a mechanism to prevent
disputes.
On Wednesday, 26 February, delegates resumed consideration of the
Chair’s elements paper. On characteristics, the element paper
focused on defining an MCP: nature, objective, expertise,
application, and evolution. The Chair noted general agreement
among participants that an MCP’s nature should be facilitative,
cooperative, transparent, simple, non-confrontational and non-
judicial. CHINA called for further definitions. She said “non-
confrontational” means that the process is triggered upon Parties
own request, the concerned Parties are fully participating in the
process, and the decisions in the process are subject to consent.
Several countries, including the EU, CHILE and the RUSSIAN
FEDERATION, said the MCP’s objective should be to find solutions
to problems of implementation, to provide assistance to Parties
and to prevent disputes from arising. CHINA, supported by ITALY,
the EU and FINLAND, said that promoting “implementation” was more
appropriate than promoting “compliance" since an MCP’s function
should be advisory. On expertise, the EU, supported by CHILE,
noted an MCP should address any questions that could arise in any
discipline and members should have sufficient expertise to ask
the right questions to experts outside the group. The US,
supported by the EU, cautioned against excluding specific fields
of expertise and called for the possibility to draw on expertise
of other bodies such as the SBSTA and the SBI. CHILE, CHINA, the
EU, SWITZERLAND and SLOVENIA supported a standing body with a
stable and fixed basis.
On institutional arrangements, the Chair’s elements paper focused
on: establishment, nature, mandate, size and constitution. The
Chair suggested a non-proliferation of institutions. To avoid
greater bureaucracy, CHILE suggested establishing a small body
where members would be selected for a specified time and that
could meet concurrently with other subsidiary bodies. An MCP
should also have a list of experts that could be consulted. IRAN
spoke against creating a new institution, stressed its budgetary
implications and noted the problem that additional meetings pose
for developing countries. The EU and SWITZERLAND suggested a
standing committee, which would report to the COP. It could
consist of 10-15 experts nominated by the COP. The EU proposed to
follow the principle of rotation.
CHINA, supported by the RUSSIAN FEDERATION and IRAN, stated that
substance and functions of an MCP should be discussed before its
form, and suggested that an MCP could be an ad hoc committee.
Concerning constitution, the Chair recognized general agreement
that members of an MCP body or committee should be government
representatives.
On procedures, the Chair’s element paper addresses the body that
would govern the process, issues to be taken up, result or
outcome, frequency of deliberations, and establishment of the
process. The EU stated that the process should be governed by the
COP. SWITZERLAND and the EU cautioned that the COP should not be
obliged to take a decision on every MCP item. CHINA preferred
that the COP govern the process but that reports and
recommendations are sent to the COP via the SBI. The EU said that
issues could be taken up by Parties as well as by the secretariat
or other bodies. CHINA cautioned that Article 13 states an MCP
would only be available to Parties, “on their own request”. On
the outcome of an MCP, the EU favored recommendations rather than
decisions. On the frequency of deliberations, the EU noted that
meetings should be held at least once a year. The EU and CHINA
said the COP should establish an MCP process. The Chair announced
that he would convert the points into a draft text, drawing
together all ideas presented
On 26 February, the Chair distributed a bracketed draft text on
an MCP (AG13/26.02.1997). The proposal notes, inter alia, that
the COP shall establish a multilateral consultative and/or ad hoc
committee and that an MCP will provide the COP with advice on
resolving questions with regard to: implementation of the
Convention; assistance to Parties to promote the process of
implementation of the Convention; promotion of understanding of
the Convention; and prevention of disputes and/or development of
solutions. The options regarding an MCP’s functions note that it
will include consideration of: any question relating to the
performance by individual Parties in the implementation of the
Convention; support; encouragement; and/or assistance.
The proposal noted that an MCP will be open-ended or consist of
10, 15 or 25 members, who are government representatives and
experts in social, economic, legal, technical, scientific and
technological and/or environmental fields. On the manner for
submitting issues, the proposal notes that an MCP will receive,
consider and report on: any submission made by one or more
Parties; references made to it by the COP, SBI and SBSTA; or
information provided by the secretariat regarding implementation
of obligations by any Party.
In discussing this proposal, the EU, supported by SLOVENIA,
proposed that an MCP could be a “standing” group. CHINA, the EU,
ZIMBABWE, FRANCE and SWITZERLAND said the main objective should
be to provide assistance to individual Parties rather than to the
COP. The EU also proposed retaining reference to preventing
disputes from arising and finding solutions. The US said
delegates had agreed on the non-judicial nature of an MCP and
“resolving questions with regard to implementation” seemed to
contradict this point. She proposed that an MCP should “provide
advice to Parties on facilitating and promoting implementation.”
The EU and EGYPT insisted on bracketing the US proposal.
On an MCP’s functions, FRANCE wished to reserve the opportunity
for the COP to entrust tasks to an MCP and said a five-member MCP
could be feasible considering the likelihood of additional ex
officio members. In response to concerns expressed by MALAYSIA
and IRAN, the Chair suggested that MCP meetings occur in
conjunction with COP and subsidiary body meetings.
On Thursday, 27 February, the Chair presented the revised draft
text for an MCP (AG13/27.02.1997) to be adopted as an annex to
the report of the session. CHINA suggested a new paragraph
stating that an MCP’s function should be “to provide assistance
to Parties in relation to difficulties they encounter in the
course of implementation including: (1) clarification of
questions and (2) assistance to the developing countries Parties
in accordance with Article 12.7 (relating to technical and
financial support).” The EU noted that the paragraphs on
objective and on functions are overlapping and proposed a new
paragraph on an MCP’s mandate, which “repacked” the existing
elements in a different format.
The US and ITALY expressed their concern about adding the Chinese
proposal. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION opposed the Chinese proposal on
functions because it substantially changes the previous work of
AG13. The Chair described this session as only the beginning of
the process and encouraged participants to be open for new and
detailed approaches. He suggested that new proposals could be
integrated in the text in square brackets and could be considered
further at the next session. The EU agreed and welcomed the
Chinese proposal. Participants agreed to integrate the Chinese
and EU proposals into the draft text.
On Friday, 28 February, the Chair presented his draft conclusions
stating that AG13-4 reiterates that the work of the group is
conducted within the framework set by Article 13. The draft
conclusions note that the compilation in Annex II is recorded
without prejudice to any decision on the establishment of a
multilateral consultative process and that the framework
compilation for a multilateral consultative process reflects
points raised as well as areas of convergence and divergence, and
would form a basis for discussion by the group at its fifth
session. The draft conclusions invite Parties to submit any
proposals they might have on the compilation in Annex II, and
request the secretariat to issue any proposals received by 1 June
1997. The framework compilation considers an MCP’s establishment,
objective, mandate, nature, size, expertise, constitution,
deliberations, governance, how issues would be taken up, outcome
and evolution. The Chair described the framework compilation as a
very accurate basis for future discussion. AG13-4 adjourned on 28
February at 5:00 pm.
THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY
The sixth session of the Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate
(AGBM-6) will be held from 3 - 7 March 1997 at the Stadthalle Bad
Godesberg, in Bonn, Germany. The AGBM will focus on the
preparation of a protocol or other legal instrument. In
accordance with the conclusions of AGBM-5
(FCCC/AGBM/1996/11,para. 23 (b)), the main document for the
session will be the framework compilation of proposals from
Parties (FCCC/AGBM/1997/2).
The provisional agenda, as provided by the Executive Secretary,
states that the main result of the session must be agreement on a
negotiating text of the protocol or other legal instrument. The
text must be circulated in all six official UN languages by 1
June 1997.
This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin is
written and edited by Chad Carpenter, LL.M. ,
Anja Janz , Marybeth Long
and Silke Speier. The Editor is
Pamela Chasek, Ph.D. and the Managing Editor is
Langston James Kimo Goree VI . The sustaining
donor of the Bulletin is the International Institute for
Sustainable Development . General
support for the Bulletin for 1997 is provided by the Overseas
Development Administration (ODA) of the United Kingdom, the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark and the Swiss Federal
Office of the Environment. Partial support for coverage of this
meeting has been provided by the UNFCCC secretariat. The authors
can be contacted at their electronic mail addresses or at tel:
+1-212-644-0204; fax: +1-212-644-0206. ˙IISD can be contacted at
161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 0Y4,
Canada; tel: +1-204-958-7700; fax: +1-204-958-7710. The opinions
expressed in Earth Negotiations Bulletin are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD and other
funders. Excerpts from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin may be
used in other publications with appropriate citation. Electronic
versions of the Bulletin are sent to e-mail distribution lists
(ASCII and PDF format) and through the Linkages WWW-server at
. For further information on ways
to access, support or contact the Earth Negotiations Bulletin
send e-mail to .
The Earth Negotiations Bulletin may not be reproduced,
reprinted or posted to any system or service outside the ENB
listserver, without specific permission from the International
Institute for Sustainable Development. This limitation includes
distribution via Usenet News, bulletin board systems, mailing
lists, print media and broadcast. For more information, send a
message to .